Link juice and max number of links clarification
-
I understand roughly that "Link Juice" is passed by dividing PR by the number of links on a page. I also understand the juice available is reduced by some portion on each iteration.
- 50 PR page
- 10 links on page
- 5 * .9 = 4.5 PR goes to each link.
Correct?
If so and knowing Google stops counting links somewhere around 100, how would it impact the flow to have over 100 links?
IE
- 50 PR page
- 150 links on the page
- .33 *.9 = .29PR to each link BUT only for 100 of them.
After that, the juice is just lost?
Also, I assume Google, to the best of its ability, organizes the links in order of importance such that content links are counted before footer links etc.
-
As always in the SEO industry, there's no right answer for any particular case but I think you got a really structured approach to it. It would be great to know the results of your experiment. This could be a really good article in the seomoz community, let me know how it goes!
-
Agreed, the extreme repetition of the brand keywords and anchor text was one of my first arguments for dropping the section.
Think, from everything I've read so far, there appears to be an additional juice loss at one point but it would highly dependent on the trust of the page and the nature of the links. Certainly not a strong enough correlation to make part of my case however.
-
I think that the link #102 may have the same value of link #35, I don't think that adding many links diminishes the value of each one. What I assume however is that:
- having many links in one page diminishes the control you have on them, so google may crawl some of them and give different weight on each one. That0s why I'll better put fewer links
- you're right about having more links to your pages augment the possibility of have thoes pages in a better position against other. However as I said before, beware that google may not crawl all your links all the time. You can achieve the same proiportion of importance with less links (ex. 10 links vs 2 is the same of 100 vs 20: same weight more control and less internal spam risks.
- be wise when you build your links and try to not use too many anchor rich links. Even if you're onsite you don't want to let google think you're trying to overoptimize your page or its backlink profile. Create variations of your anchors and use them all.
-
The question come from a circumstance where 100's of links are contained in a supplemental tab on a product detail page. They link to applications of the product - each being a full product page. On some pages, there are only 40 links, other can be upwards of 1000 as the product is used as a replacement part for many other products.
I am championing the removal of the links, if not the whole tab. On a few pages, it would be useful to humans but clearly not on pages with 100s.
But if Google followed them all, then conceivably it would build a stronger "organic" structure to the catalogue as important products would get 1000's of links - others only a few.
Whatever value this might have, it would be negated if juice leaked faster after 100+ links.
From Matt's article above, "Google might choose not to follow or to index all those links." He also mentions them being a spam signal so I think it still wise to keep them low even if the 100kb limit has been lifted. Clearly there are still ramifications - a concept reinforced by this site's reports and comments.
To my question...from what both of you have said, it doesn't appear there is strong evidence a very high number of links directly causes additional penalty as far as link juice is concerned.
For the record, I'm not calculating PR or stuck on exact counts - my focus always starts with the end user. But, I'd hate to have a structural item that causes undue damage.
-
The context is a parts page where potential hundreds of link could be associate with other parts the item fit. I looking to firm up my argument against the concept so I want to understand better the true impact of the section.
If it was accelerating the decay of link juice, all the more reason. If not, they may actual help certain products appear organically stronger (i.e. a part that fits on a greater number of products will have more incoming links).
Navigation is actually quite tight (under 20 links) by modern standards.
-
As eyepaq said a 100 links limit is not the case anymore, however even if google is able to give value to them all it really makes sense to ahve so many links in your page? Are you using fat footers? Don't rely on that structure to give value to your internal pages, if you find 100 links in one page to be needed for users to navigate through your site try to restructure it a little and create different categories.
I don't know how much value is lost after 100 links but you should try to have tinier and themed list of links adding a further step in your navigation.google won't give hesmae value to those pages as users' won't either.
-
Hi,
You should count those at all. If you get stuck in counting and calculating PR and how much PR is passed from one page to another you will lose focus from what it dose matter. This dosen't.
About the 100 links per page - that was a very old technical limitation from Google's side. There is no longer the case.
See more here: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-many-links-per-page/
and a fast 2 and so min video from Matt Cutts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6g5hoBYlf0
So the bottom line is that you should not count and focus on PR and how much PR is passed -only look at things from a normal user and ask your self: dose t his page make sense ? Dose it make sense to have over 100 links on this page ?
Not sure if this was the answer you are looking for but ... hope it helps.
Cheers.
-
I used 'PR' mainly because 'juice points' sounded stupid.
I'm more interested in what happens past the ~100 links.
Does the remaining juice get reallocated or does the page leak at a higher rate?
-
Hi Spry, as you already mentioned, not all links has the same weight, there are navigationla links like in the footer, in the menu; also google may give some different weight among them, moreover some value may be reduced, and also there are some other factors that google uses to weight each link in a page that we don't know, but we may assume they have.
So given that we can calculate an aproximate value of juice passed from a link to another I won't rely so much in PR, the time you're spending in this caluclations may be given to other tasks. In general you may assume that the best pages to obtain links are pages which are nearest to the homepage of a site and which has the least number of outgoing (both internal and external) links.
Don't rely so much on PR, I've seen so many low page rank pages ranking well and high pr pages with no rankings that I think that you need to consider other parameters which are more important when it comes to linkbuilding: age of the domain, authority, topic related, etc etc.
If your calculations are made for onsite optimization just try to have your main pages higher in your site structure and linked directly from the homepage or from m ain categories.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Backlink Profile: Should I disavow these links? Auto-Generated Links etc
Hello Moz Community, At first I wanted to say that I really like the Q&A section and that I read and learned a lot - and today it is time for my first own question 😉 I checked our backlink-profile these days and I found in my opinion a few bad/spammy links, most of them are auto-generated by pickung up some (meta) information from our webpage. Now my question is if I should dasavow these links over webmasters or if these links shouldn't matter as I guess basically every webpage will be picked up from them. Especially from the perspective that our rankings dropped significantly last weeks, but I am not sure if this can be the real reason. Examples are pages like: https://www.askives.com/ -Auto-Generates for example meta descriptions with links http://www.websitesalike.com/ -find similar websites http://mashrom.ir/ -no idea about this, really crazy Or we are at http://www.europages.com/, which makes sense for me and we get some referral traffic as well, but they auto-generated links from all their TLDs like .gr / .it / .cn etc. -just disavow all other TLDs than .com? Another example would be links from OM services like: seoprofiler.com Moreover we have a lot of links from different HR portals (including really many outdated job postings). Can these links “hurt” as well? Thanks a lot for your help! Greez Heiko
Technical SEO | | _Heiko_0 -
How should we handle re-directory links? Should we remove these links?
We are currently cleaning up bad links that were purchased by a previous SEO agency. We have found links on anonym.to pages that redirect traffic to our site automatically. How should this be handled? Should we remove these links?
Technical SEO | | Lorne_Marr0 -
Linking to CMS page ID
Hi all, Is it that detrimental to SEO if you link to the CMS page ID of a URL rather than the text URL of a page even if when you look at the source code Google sees it as a text URL? Thanks! 🙂
Technical SEO | | Diana.varbanescu0 -
Links in Webmaster Tools that aren't really linking to us
I've noticed that there is a domain in WMT that Google says is linking to our domain from 173 different pages, but it actually isn't linking to us at all on ANY of those pages. The site is a business directory that seems to be automatically scraping business listings and adding them to hundreds of different categories. Low quality crap that I've disavowed just in case. I have hand checked a bunch of the pages that WMT is reporting with links to us by viewing source, but there's no links to us. I've also used crawlers to check for links, but they turn up nothing. The pages do, however, mention our brand name. I find this very odd that Google would report links to our site when there isn't actually links to our site. Has anyone else ever noticed something like this?
Technical SEO | | Philip-DiPatrizio0 -
Linking to AND canonicalizing to a page?
I am using cross domain rel=canonical to a page that is very similar to mine. I feel the page adds value to my site so I want users to go to it, but I ultimately want them to go to the page I'm canonicalizing to. So I am linking to that page as well. Anyone foresee any issues with doing this? And/or have other suggestions? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | ThridHour0 -
Too Many Page Links
I have 8 niche websites for golf clubs. This was done to carve out tight niches for specific types of clubs then only broadens each club by type - i.e. better player, game improvement, max game improvement. So far, for fairly young sites, <1 year, they are doing fairly well as I build content. Running campaigns has alerted me to one problem - too many on-page links. And because I use Wordpress those links are on each page in the right sidebar and lead to the other sites. Even though visitors arrive via organic search in most cases they tend to eventually exit to one of the other sites or they click on a product (Ebay) and venture off to hopefully make a purchase. Ex: Drivers site will have a picture link for each of the other 7 sites. Question: If I have one stie (like a splash page) used as one link to that page listing all the sites with a brief explanation of each site will this cause visitors to bounce off because they will have one click, than the list and other clicks depending on what other club/site they would like to go to. The links all open in new windows. This would cut down on the number of links per page of each site but will it cause too much work for visitors and cause them to leave?
Technical SEO | | NicheGuy0 -
Quality links are beneficial, but are neutral links detrimental?
So obviously a link profile featuring quality / authoritative / relavant in-bound links is preferable, but here's my question: If I'm starting work on a brand new domain, should I build links that one would consider neutral (i.e. from a non-spammy, but unrelated site) or should I not bother and only focus on quality links? Thanks
Technical SEO | | underscorelive0 -
Removal of all low PR links
I have a lot of old directory links which where done years ago, most I think will be effecting my site. Is there away to find them all ie through open explorer and then remove them in one go?
Technical SEO | | Cocoonfxmedia0